NEW YORK | 447 10th Ave. | 300m+ | 1000ft+ | 60+ fl | Pro

[Hudson11]

Originally Posted by comet the cat

So whats up with this project, is this some sort of revived project?

stale proposal, but still alive

Originally Posted by Hudson11

stale proposal, but still alive

Until the cranes arrive, I won't be celebrating.

[desertpunk]

Originally Posted by comet the cat

So whats up with this project, is this some sort of revived project?

It was always alive but the design is stale. Sherwood doesn't have the firepower of a Related or a Brookfield so while they control a very choice site with HUGE rights, they won't move until they're convinced the market is ripe. When they see big leases being signed for new towers and the large financial firms moving, they'll probably redesign this tower and move forward. For now, they're focusing on smaller residential developments. It is interesting that Katz said they may get going in a year. They seem optimistic about the leasing market which has been anything but stellar for developers this year.

Originally Posted by desertpunk

It was always alive but the design is stale. Sherwood doesn't have the firepower of a Related or a Brookfield so while they control a very choice site with HUGE rights, they won't move until they're convinced the market is ripe. When they see big leases being signed for new towers and the large financial firms moving, they'll probably redesign this tower and move forward. For now, they're focusing on smaller residential developments. It is interesting that Katz said they may get going in a year. They seem optimistic about the leasing market which has been anything but stellar for developers this year.

Perhaps if they proactively seek out businesses now, they may be able to secure a lease or two.

But sitting still makes me believe that this project is not one of their top priorities right now.

[briker]

seems like there is always room for another supertall building in NY. Nice stuff

You gotta want it !!

[waltergs7]

Beautiful

I love NYC

[Manitopiaaa]

Gorgeous. Looks like a supertall actually.

[HK999]

It's actually going to be a supertall. Thread should be moved to the proposed supertall section.

[RobertWalpole]

This is not the design that will be built. It's just a massing model. The owner, Sherwood, has repeatedly stated that it's not an office developer, and therefore, seeks a partner. Presumably, they'll partner with Hines, Related, or Brookfield. I doubt, however, that anything will be built here in the next ten years.

[darkie_one]

why NYC skyscrapers are boxy mostly? why there are no organic-shaped proposals as in China or Europe for example?

[ThatOneGuy]

Originally Posted by darkie_one

why NYC skyscrapers are boxy mostly? why there are no organic-shaped proposals as in China or Europe for example?

Boxy designs are practical and cheap. The skyscrapers in China are not. NYC builds mostly for demand, not for showing off.

[Uaarkson]

Originally Posted by darkie_one

why NYC skyscrapers are boxy mostly? why there are no organic-shaped proposals as in China or Europe for example?

Easy answer: Boxy skyscrapers are cheaper to build and maximize the amount of leasable office space with their comparatively enormous floors.

A plot of bare land in Midtown (these are insanely rare) will be viewed by developers as a prime opportunity to rake in 50, 60, 70 floors worth of lease revenue. And boxy skyscrapers have the most potential for profit.

Towers like 432 Park and One57, on the other hand, are designed with the goal of maximizing views, a luxury the world's richest will pay obscene amounts of money for.

[yankeesfan1000]

Uaarkson, you hit the nail on the head. Boxes are efficient. The incredible costs associated with building anything in NY, developers have to maximize revenue.

Another reason is the grid. Outside of very lower Manhattan, basically every block is a rectangle.

[RobertWalpole]

Originally Posted by darkie_one

why NYC skyscrapers are boxy mostly? why there are no organic-shaped proposals as in China or Europe for example?

That's an incorrect statement. NY built shaped proposals before Europe and China even built skyscrapers. Moreover, this is a new trend world-wide, and NY is building plenty of shaped towers.

[AUTOTHRILL]

Originally Posted by ThatOneGuy

Boxy designs are practical and cheap. The skyscrapers in China are not. NYC builds mostly for demand, not for showing off.

London doesn't build for showing off, yet still manages world class 'organic' designs... there is no excuse for bland designs in a city like NYC...

[yankeesfan1000]

Originally Posted by AUTOTHRILL

London doesn't build for showing off, yet still manages world class 'organic' designs... there is no excuse for bland designs in a city like NYC...

The only organic shape in London is The Shard, that's actually U/C or finished. The next tallest buildings are One Canada Square, Heron, 8 CS, 25 CS, Tower 42, Swiss RE, Broadgate, One Churchill, 25 Bank... All of those except Swiss RE are the definition of boxes, nothing remotely organic.

But not every building in NY, or anywhere for that matter, is going to be postcard worthy. This building will literally be engulfed by Manhattan West and the 4 800+ foot buildings on the Eastern half of the Hudson Yards.

Plus we don't even have a design yet. No need to fret.

[ThatOneGuy]

It might also have to do with space as well. NYC is incredibly cramped, and expensive. Buildings need as little wasted space as possible, so usually square boxes are the best fit.

[dexter2]

With all the respect - NYC's history is not as long as for instance London's, but when this city started to grow fast, It was ALWAYS represented by the best examples of current architecure. Even more - it usually started trends.

Everything begin in XIX century, just look at the stunning train station or Wall Street or almost every other Manhattan street. It's remarkable how many awasome historical buildings they have... No other city can comepare to NY in terms of XIX buildings... Maybe Chicago.
Then came XX century and such buildings as ESB and Chrysler proved that nothing has changed. After that - Rockefeller Plaza.
And then boxes were in fact started in Chicago and NYC too. WTC and Sears Tower were the crown of that style.
Then came postmodernism in late 70' exactly in... NYC.



We still build mostly in that style, and still the best architecture is located in here - Bank of America Tower, Gehry's tower, Foster's tower and more...
In London and asian cities we have a totall architectural chaos (I'm talking about skyscrapers). Why? Read some Mies Van der Rohe, he will tell you the truth.

Above that as ppl said before me - because of the grid it is natural to build in a very 'tidy' style. Hopefully. In many 'new' Asian business districts buildings are spreaded like a cow's poo on a field... Urban planning is so poor, and architecture is so kitchy that I cannot look at it.

[desertpunk]

Office developers compete for anchor tenants on Manhattan’s western edge

With only a finite number of large potential renters, the fight for office tenants on the West Side is heating up

Only a few times in modern Manhattan history has an entirely new office district sprung up all at once. In the 1930s, there was Rockefeller Center; the 1970s saw the World Trade Center complex; and today, developers are planning nearly 15 million square feet of new office space in the Hudson Yards area in the 30s on the Far West Side.

The new projects expected to rise over the next decade include the Related Companies’ North and South towers at Hudson Yards, Extell Development’s One Hudson Yards, Brookfield Office Properties’ Manhattan West and Moinian’s 3 Hudson Boulevard, as well as Sherwood Equities’ 447 10th Avenue and Alloy Development’s 450 Hudson Park Boulevard.

But before starting construction on these new towers, developers must first land an anchor tenant willing to take at least 400,000 square feet of space. With only a finite number of large potential renters, the competition for office tenants is heating up, as some of the city’s top commercial leasing brokers and developers battle each other with slick marketing campaigns and — of course — behind-the-scenes jabs at rival projects.

Many companies are deeply reluctant to move to newly constructed buildings, especially in an untested neighborhood, brokers said. For most companies, it’s cheaper to stay in place and renovate, explained Joseph Harbert, president of the Eastern Region for Colliers International. And some firms fear that moving out of prime Midtown, with its bevy of transportation options, will cause them to lose employees. Related Hudson Yards President Jay Cross agreed, saying: “We compete against renewals as much as new construction.”

In 2011, fashion manufacturer Coach signed on to be an anchor tenant of Related’s South Tower. But Coach was already located a few blocks away, in a building directly in the path of Hudson Yards bulldozers. For many of the other big companies whose names are being kicked around as possible anchor tenants, a move to the Far West Side would represent a significant geographic shift from Midtown or Downtown.

There are currently 10 to 20 companies said to be on the hunt for large chunks of Manhattan office space, brokers said. These include media companies Time Warner, Sony, CBS and News Corp.; law firms White & Case and Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom; advertising firm GroupM; financial giant Credit Suisse; and fashion house Ralph Lauren.

Brokers for the new Hudson Yards–area towers are fighting to lure these tenants, but their efforts could be in vain if companies decide to stay in their current locations, or move to existing office towers instead.

[...]

Developers in the area are also competing for tax benefits. A 15-year, 40 percent property tax reduction is being offered for the first 5 million square feet of office space to be built west of 10th Avenue. Related said last month that it will apply for the tax break for the South Tower, which would leave about 3.3 million square feet up for grabs. After the first 5 million, the tax break drops to 25 percent.

But some developers may hold off on construction until the neighborhood is more established and competition wanes. “We are waiting until rents get really attractive before we build,” said Ryan Nelson, senior vice president at Sherwood Equities. “Truthfully, it will probably be the next [construction] cycle.” For the time being, sources said asking rents for most of the new towers range from $80 to $90 per square foot.

This month, The Real Deal took an in-depth look at the new towers planned for the Far West Side, and how they’re faring in the race to nab tenants.

447 10th Avenue

Developer: Sherwood Equities

Size: 2.5 million square feet

Expected completion date: TBD

Leasing agent: None

Midtown-based Sherwood Equities, headed by CEO Jeffrey Katz, owns three parcels in the Hudson Yards area. But much like Alloy, it is less well-known than most of the other Far West Side developers.

Sherwood is planning an office tower at 447 10th Avenue at 34th Street on a site it’s owned since 1986. (Sherwood’s two smaller sites in the district will likely become residential or mixed-use towers.)

But the firm is in no hurry to start construction on the massive office project, Nelson said, and Sherwood is not competing as fiercely for tenants as some of the other developers in the area. “We are not being as aggressive as the others,” Nelson said. With rents in the untested neighborhood still relatively low, the firm feels that “it does not make sense to fight tooth and nail.” He said he expects rents in the area to rise dramatically once tenants start moving in to other new buildings.

Sherwood is nonetheless on the lookout for tenants in need of large chunks of space. Sources said the firm responded to an inquiry from Time Warner about potentially taking space at 447 10th. Nelson declined to comment on Time Warner specifically, but confirmed that Sherwood would indeed respond “if a tenant came along that needed 2 million square feet.”

[...]

So Sherwood is biding their time awaiting either a big tennant in search of a massive block of space or for rents to climb higher.